Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

England Cricket 2014 (Test, ODI, T20)

Actually feel sorry for Cook, even his own mates telling him he's a bit shit. He is a good test batsman, particularly when he gets lucky like he did against India but he is definitely not a one day man.
Back when he was in his purple patch of form, he was a good one-day player, scoring good runs at nearly a run a ball. I would put yesterday's performance mostly down to him still being out of form. His rather scratchy runs in the tests didn't convince me he'd really turned the corner yet.
 
And what do you make of swann having a crack at him? Basically echoing what piers morgans been saying for a long time.

I think he's right. But I also think swanns a cunt for doing so having pussied out of the ashes thrashing.
 
Bit surprised. Very surprised by Swann having a go at England's past tactics and stats-based approach. But his insights have been very interesting - England are stuck in a crazy, overly rigid approach. t20 has changed 50-overs totally. Milking 4 runs an over for 20 overs in the middle is no longer ambitious enough. Weather storms, sure, but in calmer waters, every ball has the potential to go for six, every over has the potential to go for 20, and every innings has the potential to exceed 300. And a total of 300 is eminently chaseable. Seems to me that everyone gets this now except England. It's a bit weird.
 
Can't believe it's taken this long to bring Hayles in. He's about the only world class one day player in that side. Morgan, yes, on his day. Bell can play an anchor role. But Cook, no.
 
The anchor role is quickly becoming obsolete, tbh. The latest match between Aus and SA showed that. On a good pitch, you need the capability to blast away from both ends.

Was interesting to hear earlier in the season that Sri Lanka totally ignore all stats from before 2000. Different game and irrelevant. And they treat today's stats as still part of a changing game.
 
As to Swann's comments, saying England have 'no chance' at the WC comes across as rather mean-spirited and unnecessary. And also not very constructive. I don't think England will win next year either, but there are ways and ways of saying things.

Good idea for ex-players to spend two or three years doing something else rather than slipping into punditry straight away. Same goes for Strauss. Go away and study the game for a bit.
 
Last edited:
Strauss is even duller as a commentator than he was as a batsman. Excruciating. It's like listening to a massive box of Nytol.
 
Strauss is even duller as a commentator than he was as a batsman. Excruciating. It's like listening to a massive box of Nytol.
Sky appear to have no quality control on their commentators at all. If you're an ex-England captain and you want the job, it's yours, it would seem. I like Holding and Bumble (although Bumble seems to be believing his own press about being a funny man a bit too much now); Atherton has something. The rest are rather shite.
 
Warnes excellent. I think he jumps between Star and Sky boxes. His brain is pure cricket. If he thinks you're a shit captain, you're a shit captain.
 
And what do you make of swann having a crack at him? Basically echoing what piers morgans been saying for a long time.

I think he's right. But I also think swanns a cunt for doing so having pussied out of the ashes thrashing.
Swann was sacked. He didn't pussy out.

I think his comments about the world cup are fair enough. He is a pundit now and his job is to call it as he sees it and not worry about hurting anyone's feelings.

His commentary and insights about what is going on in the field have given a level of detail about the on field action. What signs and changes in the teams behaviour when the ball reverses, etc.
 
Swann was sacked.

He was?

I thought he announced his retirement mid-series. He could and imo should have stayed with the team, even if he had declared himself unfit. Looking back, he could and imo should have retired before that series at the end of last summer. But I will give him the benefit of the doubt and think that he went to Aus with good intentions, hoping to contribute to one final tour.
 
I thought he said he wanted to stay with the team but was told to go home. His elbow was gone and he wasn't bowling to standard.
 
I thought he said he wanted to stay with the team but was told to go home. His elbow was gone and he wasn't bowling to standard.
Ah right. It does appear that he has said that. Missed this - he says that Andy Flower told him to fuck off. TBH that's even weirder. Flower does seem to have acted like a bit of a dick near the end.
 
What a woeful performance by England.

The Indian spinners were magnificent, they were unplayable, well to any great degree.

But for Tredwell and Butler, it would have been even more of a rout.
 
They are part time spinners. England are fucked in this form of the game. Not much better in the long form.

I always found spin difficult to play, but, part time or not, these guys were superb. Not just the amount of turn they were getting, but very controlled length. The England players played far too much on the back foot; the only chance they had was to come forward to the ball, which wouldn't have been difficult, given the length of the deliveries. The England batsmen lacked the confidence to do that though.
 
I think it could also be a case of the England batsmen underestimating these part timers. New Zealand used to do the same back in the day with dibbly dobblers and it was very effective. Before you know it, 25 overs have gone.
 
It is to me.. What were you doing there?
It was a work-related thing. I'm doing some media work for them. The meeting was in the main part of the pavillion. I'm not really a cricket bod, but the aura, gentle sense of theatre, history, and gravitas, did leave an impression. I've been told that if I want to film in there I have to wear a suit and tie! :D
 
The anchor role is quickly becoming obsolete, tbh. The latest match between Aus and SA showed that. On a good pitch, you need the capability to blast away from both ends.

Was interesting to hear earlier in the season that Sri Lanka totally ignore all stats from before 2000. Different game and irrelevant. And they treat today's stats as still part of a changing game.
Don't you think there's an argument for an anchor on an 'English' wicket, where the bowlers have more of a shout and a par score (not saying England made it) is 220-240 and you expect to lose wickets?

I don't think Cook should play because ODIs don't matter and playing at balls he would leave in a Test is not good practice for an opener?

Get him fit and well for Tests and get the One Day team running on the same lines as the T20. chuck Taylor back in if he's ready..
 
I don't think 220 is par on any wicket in the world anymore, not since the advent of 20/20. Sides should be aiming for 300.
 
I don't think 220 is par on any wicket in the world anymore, not since the advent of 20/20. Sides should be aiming for 300.

Two of the winning scores in the RL50 quarter finals last week were 237 and 241. One player scored a ton with a strike rate of .60, all suggesting English wicket and anchor.. if England want to prepare for whatever conditions they'll face in the next world cup, they should play in them and if that means no anchor then that's what they should do. That said, the current selection and tactic isn't working.
 
Lots and lots of 300+ this tournament though - and one 383 from kent which we just failed to overhaul on the last ball. (In fact we scored at a higher rate than them but we lost two overs to rain and a daft revised target was given off 48 overs)
 
Two of the winning scores in the RL50 quarter finals last week were 237 and 241. One player scored a ton with a strike rate of .60, all suggesting English wicket and anchor.. if England want to prepare for whatever conditions they'll face in the next world cup, they should play in them and if that means no anchor then that's what they should do. That said, the current selection and tactic isn't working.
Problem is pre-planning the anchor. Graeme Swann has now criticised the policy where England were thumped by Sri Lanka in the world cup after they'd scored 230-odd. They'd planned that score before the innings had started, and that's the problem. You can't plan conservatively like that. You've got to stride out thinking 300 is on, and revise down later if necessary.
 
Problem is pre-planning the anchor. Graeme Swann has now criticised the policy where England were thumped by Sri Lanka in the world cup after they'd scored 230-odd. They'd planned that score before the innings had started, and that's the problem. You can't plan conservatively like that. You've got to stride out thinking 300 is on, and revise down later if necessary.

Absolutely - aim high. If you're going to lose why be conservative in your approach? Was just sticking the proviso in, that sometimes batting first on a green top with overcast conditions you may want to dig in a little. There's also been a complaint that the number of matches played on major grounds (rather than outgrounds) has meant pitches being over used, are slow and low and make it harder to score.
 
Back
Top Bottom